First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Shakespeare gone?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
WARNING 3 PAGE POST AHEAD!


thefinalword said:

seraph, your initial posts are so long I rarely bother to even read the whole thing.....

I usually just get the jist of the post from other posters....

as for shakespeare, the man was a genious in his own right.
A little bit of shakespeare is good to waken up today's moronic youth.

get them off the couch and away from their mtv bullshit.


Yes, well, that’s your own issue. If you’re not willing to read over my posts then please refrain from activity in my threads. You cannot possible add anything desirable to the conversations if you don’t even allow yourself to know the subject.





Jamehze

Although those stories are cliché in this era, they were pretty innovative for his time after all.

Also Shakespeare is mainly studied because it is the popular genre of the age. English is meant to study texts from different parts of history, and Shakespeare has a pretty unique style. The structure of iambic pentameter and old english is important to understand for its significance. The plot isn't the only part being studied. Many essays are revolved around the idea on how literature has changed throughout the ages and Shakespeare can be used for comparative purposes as he is the novel writer of the Renaissance.

At my school, I've read Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet. It wasn't that bad in my view. I have to agree that the acting was probably the best part of the whole experience.


Really? As I read his stories weren’t original, even for his time. Romeo and Juliet, the story of two star-crossed lover, was a popular story going on back then. The Renaissance equivalent of our recent fad in Zombie movies here in America. However, even after reading those I am unable to comprehend the iambic beat or any other beat. I just can’t hear which words are stressed and which are not….


kawaiichan09 wrote:

though i love romeo and juliet.. i'm not against his works not being taught on highschools.. there are still better stuff that can be taught and can also relate to our everyday lives.. such as to kill a mockingbird although blacks have the same equality as any other race now. its still a god book.


Yes, I agree very much with that right there. I feel that High School is mainly to prepare children for college. This being said, I think that rather than trying to teach it all at such a low level in the education chain, we should just introduce people. Build an interest in the subject. Shakespeare is counter productive. Most youths hate learning about it in High-School because they are not quite yet at the necessary maturity and skill level to properly comprehend it. I think it should be taken from High-Schools but certainly not colleges. Also, I recommend Uncle Tom’s Cabin if you like to read books pertaining to racial relationships. I didn’t enjoy reading it myself, but to be honest I don’t like books with that style of English.


starcrossed23 wrote:

Oh my God...I would personally consider it a travesty if Shakespeare was to be taken out of high school. There's no fear of it being taken out of university level as long as there are english majors (like me) out there. Shakespeare should definiately be taught to high school students if only to demonstrate the use of language. His diction is flawless. Reading his work and having to puzzle through the imagry and allusion present in his writing is essential to learning the foundations of modern literature. Taking him out of the curriculum is just another way for the school system to further cripple our children. It's bad enough that most high schools' exit exams only amount to eighth grade equivalency as it is.

As for kawaiichan's comment about reading to kill a mockingbird as a means of learning about race relations...I suggest you read Othello which is about interracial marriage and the hardships that those couples face. It also deals with the centrals themes of trust and betrayal...not to mention a fair share of karmic values thrown in for good measure.

Ktito, your comments on Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Hamlet I just don't get. If Romeo and Juliet was so damn boring then why do people keep remaking it...westside story, titanic, and just about any love story has element borrowed from R&J. Macbeth, a cautionary tale about the dangers of ambition and pride...it's an important piece to study because it draws upon the Greek theatrical tradition of hubristic tradegy. And Hamlet?!?!? How can you not see that as a great work of literature...did you like the Lion King...it's basically the same story just dumbed down for kids and given a happy ending. That is a freakin' masterpiece. By the way, your argument of studying other works by Shakespeare...while I would have loved reading his collection of sonnets, when I went to high school poetry was absolutely not taught because "it doesn't interest students."

And I'm sorry, but cliche? How so? Romeo and Juliet only seems cliche because it's the archetype for all other mordern love stories...translation: everyone copies it. Honestly, how many people out there really know that R&J was loosley based on Pyramis and Thisbe? Not too many I'm sure, but that fact that Shakespeare retold an old myth with his own twist in order to truly capture what it is to love someone beyond yourself...classic. And how is Macbeth cliche? Or Hamlet for that matter. And please, show me one other piece of literature that's remotely similar to A Midsummer Night's Dream. Things only seem cliche in retrospect...and if you look back far enough you'll find the Bard's work is the source material for a lot of today's fiction.

Honestly, the only problem that I have with teaching Shakespeare is that for the most part no one knows how to teach it. Plays are not meant to be read like fiction. They are meant to be spoken, acted, lived. But I think I may have ranted enough for now.


I’m not sure if I agree with that comment. Romeo and Juliet’s story was featured in the English theater through various other plays. As I mentioned above, the star crossed lovers were a central theme in other plays during the time period. Heck, we’ve seen those done time and again sense the times of the Ancient Greeks. I think Romeo and Juliet is redone so often because people are trying to take the good parts of it and omit the obvious flaws. The storyline is indeed interesting, but not original. I’ve seen it to many times in both texts from our modern world and text from antiquity. As a result I did loose interest when I was studying this by myself, however, I enjoyed learning about it in a classroom where I could discuss it with my peers.

Then again, you’re an English major right? Well, perhaps is foolhardy of me to debate the history of literature with you… However, something I am willing to call you out for is your comments directed toward kitto. I’ve no special bond with him, however I can clearly see that you’re not being fair towards him. He merely stated his opinion. It gets tedious to follow every statement of your feelings by, “This is how I see it,” or “This is my opinion.” I know because when I was fresh to CR I made sure to say one of those things at the end of every post I expressed my political views in.





chocofluffywhip wrote:

I think shakespeare is overrated, I admit, but I think his works should be covered in class. If not his works, at least broaden the horizon with other olde english novels. It bothers me that teachers are sometimes limited to his works. There is more out there. I don't think it is fair to stop studying works based on a personal opinion on some of the plays. In high school half of the class doesn't read it anyway. Olde english should still be in the class as well as many other thought provoking works. (1984, Slaughterhouse 5, Sons and Lovers, All Quiet on the Western Front)

Also I think you many underestimate the challenge of teching a book in class. The teacher must write countless papers and go through many board meetings to prove the book is worthy. It's certainly something that takes time and with all the space Shakespeare takes up... he's not going anywhere for a while.

As for Romeo and Juliet, I don't hate it because it was cliche. I can see where others can see it that way. I dislike it beacause I do not believe they were in love. It was too teenage melodrama for me.


Well, I certainly do understand how hard a teachers job is. I’m called upon to tutor masses of students in not one, but all of their classes. This alone taxes me deeply, and it doesn’t compare to what teachers go through. Still, they get paid for it and I don’t… :p

Well, I do think old English should be taught in school. However, I think that there are better selections that can give you a more profound look into the culture and language of the time. After all, Shakespeare is famous for inventing words that nobody else used. For example: Assassination. (Which actual has the most interesting history of all words! Ultimately it comes from Assassin which comes from Hash-hash-en, [not sure on the spelling of the last.] which comes from hash heesh. In other words…pot. :p)

Anyway….


thefinalword wrote:

coolxblue

i find your posts extremely annoying.

1) you never post anything worth posting
2) you seem to post just accumulate more cr points.
3) dont double post.


This coming from a character who announced that he doesn’t even read a thread topic if it is too long before he posts in it? …I’m not trying to be rude, but I seriously find that humorous in an almost wry way…

Well, I think that’s all I have to say for now…


Srry for the loooong post. Even for me that was tedious, but I wanted to address everyone who‘s comments caught my eye.
522 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / Philippines
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
well as far as i know some of the famous animes in he past and some animes now where influenced by shakespeare
3928 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Jersey
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
^^ That's not true.

Romeo and Juliet - based off of "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" by Brooke in 1562.
Julius Caesar - Various historical sources.
Macbeth - off of a historical account by some author (too lazy to find it.)
Hamlet - Based off Scandinavian lengend
Othello - Based off of Hecatommithi by Giovanni Battista Giraldi in the 1500s

His stories are not originals, but embellishments of other sources.

@seraphalford
I didn't say that his plot was necessarily original, I meant that his style such as his structure and language was unique for the time which is needed for comparisons in the development in English literature.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
kids today are dumber than they ever have been before. apparently the teachers aren't much better if they're thinking about taking shakespeare out of classrooms. what in god's name are they replacing him with?

shakespeare isn't just about "good stories" (though they certainly are). it's about teaching kids coins of the culture. it's about the development of the english language. it's part history, part language, and then narrative on top of that. what do people think modern movie screenplays are based off of? concepts and ideas that shakespeare helped introduce.

god i'm so pissed at US public schools. just what the fuck do they teach anymore? not enough math and science to count, history has become nothing more than pushing politcally correct rewritten history on kids, now they're ripping out classical english literature. what the fuck is next?

it seems to me the smarter we as a people get, the more we seem to be forgetting.

i'm about ready to say fuck the US and move to europe once i graduate. i'm sure they can use engineers.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
@Jam. I see. Yes, then I agree with you on that. His style was quite impressive and unique for the time period... As far as I know anyway. (I wont say I'm the most educated character on this area.)
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

@Jam. I see. Yes, then I agree with you on that. His style was quite impressive and unique for the time period... As far as I know anyway. (I wont say I'm the most educated character on this area.)


hmmm well i'm not sure i'd call him "unique" but i'd say he was quite impressive for his time. marlowe was pretty good, he is the only other 16th century playwrite i've read anything by.
1021 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / Torrance,CA
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
study per say? no... read, quiz, and have it on Star Test, indeed yes. He is not gone and is definably still around. in collage the option is open if they have enough ppl., unless it's more like a medical school or something that it's not going to have anybody joining. i know that
freshman-R&J
sophomore-Macbeth
i know thats the first two ones h.s. students have to go through. At my school it is also offered as an elective. ^.^ it is definably still around!
288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Washington DC
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

I just read a news paper that is saying most high schools and colleges no longer requires students to study the playwright Shakespeare. Personally I’m all for this. There are so much more important things you can teach students about than some unoriginal playwright. I’ve always considered him a master of literature but to be honest I don’t think he’s as great as many people consider him. His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original. Many people say that he was a master of the foote and meter, but he invented words so of course it was a lot easier for him to capture a beat… Anyway, that’s off topic. Some people are getting mad. They say Shakespeare is one of the most important figures in literature and that literature is an important subject. I agree with their later proclamation but no the former. I think literature should be taught, however I think there are more important figures to focus on than Shakespeare. Maybe he was a prodigy, but he didn’t like… completely revolutionize literature as we know it.

Honestly I’m not quite -for- this, but I’m certainly not against it. I don’t view it as that important. It’s a negligible matter only useful for a good debate here on CR.




Have you ever actually READ Shakespeare? I don't mean read out loud the lines of the character your teacher assigned to you back in English class and then zoned back out into La La Land until your character shows up again. I mean have you ever actually sat down with a copy of Macbeth, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, etc. and just read it? Try it sometime. You ger SO much more out of it.

BTW To everyone who keeps mentioning "Old English." BEOWULF is written in Old English. Shakespearean Enlish might better be described as, say, "Court-Formal"
5787 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / US
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
There are many cliché phases used in English that originate from Shakespeare’s works. Also I think it is a good thing to go over these if no other reason then to show the students the progression of the english language and to explain the meaning behind some the archaic terms used. Also there are many cliché phrases in the English language that originated from Shakespeare’s works.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

peregrine829 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

I just read a news paper that is saying most high schools and colleges no longer requires students to study the playwright Shakespeare. Personally I’m all for this. There are so much more important things you can teach students about than some unoriginal playwright. I’ve always considered him a master of literature but to be honest I don’t think he’s as great as many people consider him. His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original. Many people say that he was a master of the foote and meter, but he invented words so of course it was a lot easier for him to capture a beat… Anyway, that’s off topic. Some people are getting mad. They say Shakespeare is one of the most important figures in literature and that literature is an important subject. I agree with their later proclamation but no the former. I think literature should be taught, however I think there are more important figures to focus on than Shakespeare. Maybe he was a prodigy, but he didn’t like… completely revolutionize literature as we know it.

Honestly I’m not quite -for- this, but I’m certainly not against it. I don’t view it as that important. It’s a negligible matter only useful for a good debate here on CR.




Have you ever actually READ Shakespeare? I don't mean read out loud the lines of the character your teacher assigned to you back in English class and then zoned back out into La La Land until your character shows up again. I mean have you ever actually sat down with a copy of Macbeth, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, etc. and just read it? Try it sometime. You ger SO much more out of it.

BTW To everyone who keeps mentioning "Old English." BEOWULF is written in Old English. Shakespearean Enlish might better be described as, say, "Court-Formal"



I've not only read but also studied multiple Shakespeare plays as well as his life. Clearly your own knowledge of literature is wildly finite. Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us. Especially not me, cuz I don’t talk about anything without at least glancing over it first.

Whatever. Doesn’t matter. Yes, I’ve read it. Now if you would go and read over the thread, not jus the initial post, then you will find out what I find unoriginal about his plays. I’m not going to systematically go through and list off the over done attributes of every individual play, but if you’ve studied literature both before and after Shakespeare’s time you will find his stories were not the most evolutionary of stories. It was his writing style and technique that was so amazing.

Well, whatever the case, this is a debate. Not an argument. I’d like to keep it that way. So in the future, don’t be so derogatory in your voice toward readers. I mentioned before in this thread that what I am saying is opinion.

6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us.


I lol'd at that line. Right back at ya.
288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Washington DC
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

azrael910 wrote:

kids today are dumber than they ever have been before. apparently the teachers aren't much better if they're thinking about taking shakespeare out of classrooms. what in god's name are they replacing him with?

shakespeare isn't just about "good stories" (though they certainly are). it's about teaching kids coins of the culture. it's about the development of the english language. it's part history, part language, and then narrative on top of that. what do people think modern movie screenplays are based off of? concepts and ideas that shakespeare helped introduce.

god i'm so pissed at US public schools. just what the fuck do they teach anymore? not enough math and science to count, history has become nothing more than pushing politcally correct rewritten history on kids, now they're ripping out classical english literature. what the fuck is next?

it seems to me the smarter we as a people get, the more we seem to be forgetting.

i'm about ready to say fuck the US and move to europe once i graduate. i'm sure they can use engineers.




azreal, I love you.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

n0odle wrote:


Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us.


I lol'd at that line. Right back at ya.



Oy, I'm an turbo hypocrite for that...


There are many cliché phases used in English that originate from Shakespeare’s works. Also I think it is a good thing to go over these if no other reason then to show the students the progression of the english language and to explain the meaning behind some the archaic terms used. Also there are many cliché phrases in the English language that originated from Shakespeare’s works..


Aye. But are their many cliche phrases in the English language that originated from Shaesspear's works? :p.


6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


n0odle wrote:


Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us.


I lol'd at that line. Right back at ya.



Oy, I'm an turbo hypocrite for that...



Sarcasm is a mark of an idiot.
3399 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / singapore
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
i like shakespeare. although sometimes the language confuses me...but the characters and plots are the best. the classics are classics for a reason, i think everyone will realize that at some point in time, in school or out of school.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.